Re: Paying for the Library/Regional facilities but Minneapolis pays
There is more to do than just build the building--though the building is way important. It takes something like $100,000 a year more to run Hosmer than the library has a budget to afford. As a new Sumner and Franklin library come into being, it will take that much more for them too. The legislature is going to need to be lobbied to bring in those funds since it will be impossible for the city to keep up with the extra costs (I think, but I'm not too smart about this stuff). The costs go for additional homework helpers who are bi-lingual, additional programming, additional resources (read book and material budgets) to meet the needs of immagrant populations who are flooding the library to get the information to help them adjust to their new circumstances. It would be a great help if each member of this list were to privately lobby his/her legislators and congress members to think of libraries first, not last. The hook is the information age and how everyone in the country needs to be able to move comfortably through getting information. Of course, if that were to happen to its full extent, some legislators and congress people would be removed from their posts eventually. Ah, democracy! Wizard Marks, Central R.T.Rybak wrote: The taxpayers of Minneapolis stepped up to pass the Library Referendum. But I hope this doesn't end the debate about participation from the state, country and business community. Minneapolis has stepped up over and over again to pay for facilities that are regionwide and statewide resources, as Carol Becker pointed out. Sometimes we have jumped up too quickly and let others off the hook(I'm one of many who saw the first convention center funding debate at the Legislature who thought the city could have gotten the state money it deserved it we had driven a harder bargain.) Whether or not that has now happened with the library, those planning this project really owe it to Minneapolis' taxpayers to keep making that case to the county and the Legislature... It would be nice if funding eventually came from the state so city taxpayers wouldn't have to pay as much as they authorized...(Wouldn't you love it if one day a political body said, "Thanks for this, you guys, but we didn't need it all so have some back")but considering the bargaining position now lost, it seems very doubtful that will happen. If not, then the Legislature that has sent millions upon millions upon millions to St. Paul for museums and arenas should at the very least be able to fund a state-of-the-art Planetarium. And if, in fact, MacPhail is going to have to move for St. Thomas' expansion, can the state that has spent zillions on the University play a role in helping to integrate a new MacPhail into the library for a first of it's kind music education center? And if a full merger of the city and county library systems isn't on the table, isn't there at least an option here where the county should be playing some role in this building? How about joining with the business community to make a real step toward actually addressing the Digital Divide with a state of the art Internet access center that can really serve the masses, instead of the three or four at a time now lined up at the terminals? The library project has had a very rocky road over the past decade, and there is lots of blame to go around. But now that the taxpayers have stepped up to do their part, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build something truly extraordinary. We shouldn't blow it by thinking small, or letting others off the hook. This has the potential to be one of the most important projects this generation will leave behind It's just that all the spending on other projects means we shouldn't, and can't, pay for it on our own. R.T. Rybak East Harriet
RE: Paying for the Library/Regional facilities but Minneapolis pays
The taxpayers of Minneapolis stepped up to pass the Library Referendum. But I hope this doesn't end the debate about participation from the state, country and business community. Minneapolis has stepped up over and over again to pay for facilities that are regionwide and statewide resources, as Carol Becker pointed out. Sometimes we have jumped up too quickly and let others off the hook(I'm one of many who saw the first convention center funding debate at the Legislature who thought the city could have gotten the state money it deserved it we had driven a harder bargain.) Whether or not that has now happened with the library, those planning this project really owe it to Minneapolis' taxpayers to keep making that case to the county and the Legislature... It would be nice if funding eventually came from the state so city taxpayers wouldn't have to pay as much as they authorized...(Wouldn't you love it if one day a political body said, "Thanks for this, you guys, but we didn't need it all so have some back")but considering the bargaining position now lost, it seems very doubtful that will happen. If not, then the Legislature that has sent millions upon millions upon millions to St. Paul for museums and arenas should at the very least be able to fund a state-of-the-art Planetarium. And if, in fact, MacPhail is going to have to move for St. Thomas' expansion, can the state that has spent zillions on the University play a role in helping to integrate a new MacPhail into the library for a first of it's kind music education center? And if a full merger of the city and county library systems isn't on the table, isn't there at least an option here where the county should be playing some role in this building? How about joining with the business community to make a real step toward actually addressing the Digital Divide with a state of the art Internet access center that can really serve the masses, instead of the three or four at a time now lined up at the terminals? The library project has had a very rocky road over the past decade, and there is lots of blame to go around. But now that the taxpayers have stepped up to do their part, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build something truly extraordinary. We shouldn't blow it by thinking small, or letting others off the hook. This has the potential to be one of the most important projects this generation will leave behind It's just that all the spending on other projects means we shouldn't, and can't, pay for it on our own. R.T. Rybak East Harriet
Re: Paying for the Library/Regional facilities but Minneapolis pays
--part1_83.2c697f1.2740d55b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit rt@rtrybak ended his comments on the library with: We shouldn't blow it by thinking small, or letting others off the hook. This has the potential to be one of the most important projects this generation will leave behind It's just that all the spending on other projects means we shouldn't, and can't, pay for it on our own. The problem is that we have not been voting on an entire package. The library staff recommended at first just doing the new Central Library. The reason was that the negative cash flow in the libraries own projections after remodelling the branch libraries approaches $2,000,000 per year. The library board was aware of this unfunded negative cash flow and made the decision to not include a request to fund it in the referendum.Their consultants told them they had to include the branch libraries in the referendum in order to get voter support for the Central Library. The decision was to get the capital projects funded and when the negative numbers hit go back to the voters, or the city, to fund the rest. Once we are on the hook they figured it would be hard to turn down the additional request. Staff has even mentioned that this need for additional cash flow came up after the current library was built so the Library Board felt there was precedent to go back to the citizens after they see thier new buildings. The problem gets worse in that the $2,000,000 estimate per year appears to be low. Wizard mentioned in an earlier exchange that Hosmer library, after remodelling, needed 70 to $80,000 per year above the budget of the library to run the remodelled facility. With all the remodelled libraries looking for similar services that will significantly increase the negative. The $2,000,000 also does not include any additional operating losses for the Central Library. It also does not include any expanded hours from the current hours. One of the libraries major goals has been listed as expanding the service hours to meet todays needs. I believe the potential negative more likely approaches $3,000,000 per year. It is obvious the voteres are supportive of the libaries and are willing to pay for the improvements. I agree that now is the time, even though we have weakened our negotiating position, to pursue other funding sources. If outside sources are not available we should make sure the Library can answer how they will cover their budgets. If they can not provide the answer it seems we should go back to the voters and ask for additional funding before we authorize the 140,000,000 of capital improvements. Bob Gustafson, 13th --part1_83.2c697f1.2740d55b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HTMLFONT SIZE=2rt@rtrybak ended his comments on the library with: BR BR nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;We shouldn't blow it by thinking small, BR nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;or letting others off the hook. This has the potential to be one of BRthe most BR nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;important projects this generation will leave behind It's just BRthat all BR nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;the spending on other projects means we shouldn't, and can't, pay for BRit on BR nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;our own. BR BRThe problem is that we have not been voting on an entire package. The library BRstaff recommended at first just doing the new Central Library. The reason was BRthat the negative cash flow in the libraries own projections after BRremodelling the branch libraries approaches $2,000,000 per year. The library BRboard was aware of this unfunded negative cash flow and made the decision to BRnot include a request to fund it in the referendum.Their consultants told BRthem they had to include the branch libraries in the referendum in order to BRget voter support for the Central Library. The decision was to get the BRcapital projects funded and when the negative numbers hit go back to the BRvoters, or the city, to fund the rest. Once we are on the hook they figured BRit would be hard to turn down the additional request. Staff has even BRmentioned that this need for additional cash flow came up after the current BRlibrary was built so the Library Board felt the! ! ! re was precedent to go back to BRthe citizens after they see thier new buildings. BR nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The problem gets worse in that the $2,000,000 estimate per year appears BRto be low. Wizard mentioned in an earlier exchange that Hosmer library, after BRremodelling, needed 70 to $80,000 per year above the budget of the library to BRrun the remodelled facility. With all the remodelled libraries looking for BRsimilar services that will significantly increase the negative. The BR$2,000,000 also does not include any additional operating losses for the BRCentral Library. It also does not
Re: Paying for the Library/Regional facilities but Minneapolis pays
I believe that county-wide support for a regional facility like the Central Library is not enough. I believe that we need a region-wide way of addressing and paying for items of regional significance. I also believe the State should pay for things of State significance. The problem is when it comes to crunch time, the Legislature bails, leaving the City to make something happen. And we have a narrowly-defined regional governance structure and because of this, we don't even think of having a regional government address these types of issues. Case in point, the Minneapolis Convention Center. A facility that gives business from around the State the ability to showcase and sell their goods on the national and international market. Clearly a state benefit. The discussion of having a national-level convention center was started by the State. Then the State refused to pay for it, pushing the cost off to Minneapolis. Minneapolis stepped up to the plate and made it happen. The result? A great facility important to the State and City economy. But when we talk about the debt load of Minneapolis, the biggest portion of that debt is the Convention Center. Other examples? The Minneapolis Institute of Arts (the most unknown property tax in the City). The Target Center and the Metrodome (food and liquor taxes used for the Metrodome for several years and pledged to the Target Center if needed). The Chain of Lakes and the other regional parks. (paid almost virtually all by your tax dollars). Etc. I support a City tax for funding the Library because I believe it is the only way of getting the job done. Over the long-term though, the two questions in my mind are 1) how do we engage the Legislature to take responsibility for things of State significance which are owned by other levels of government and 2) how do we fund things of regional significance without a regional source of funds and a narrowly defined regional government. Carol Becker Longfellow - Original Message - From: Steve Minn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 7:53 AM Subject: Paying for the Library Tim Bonham misses the point, and frankly, so did most Minneapolis voters. I'm very much a believer in central cities as cultural and destination engines of a region. That's why I supported LRT. BUTMinneapolis has a shrinking percentage of tax base relative to the growth of the region,and Minneapolis has a increasing proportion of local debt relative to local tax base growth - primarily due to a high level of TIF. Minneapolis used to always be a net contributor to Fiscal Disparities. Now, many suburbs are net contributors, and Minneapolis occasionally a net recipient. As C/I and Apartment tax rates continue to get relief from the legislature, and new projects downtown get disproportionate TIF relative to private investment, the debt and tax burden of the city gets shifted to a smaller and smaller number of taxpayers...i.e.: Mr. Bonham's house. Hey...pay for it...thank you.but I'm still an urbanite at heart, and I think Minneapolis SHOULD have demanded county-wide support for this institution, and denied resource sharing unless they got it! Steve Minn Minneapolis-deprived -- From: Tim Bonham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Paying for the Library Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000, 6:49 PM Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:18:59 -0600 From: "Steve Minn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Beem, Katy" [EMAIL PROTECTED], Subject: Paying for the Library ...You have made my point...Non Minneapolitans will use it, and not pay for it! You know, Steve, I think some of those Non-Minneapolitans also drive on our streets or swim in our lakes or play softball in our parks, all without paying for it! Gee, do ya think maybe we should set up tollbooth checkpoints at the borders of the city? Or maybe just accept this as one of the prices to pay for living in the big city the economic heart of the state? If we want to get into all the myriad of ways in which the city residents/taxpayers subsidize suburban/rural areas, that's a whole new ( lengthy) discussion. Tim Bonham Longfellow Neighborhood
